Dear All,
we’ve received these comments to the RTM draft. Yaakov kindly agreed to include
both WGs in the discussion.
Please review the draft, comments and we appreciate your opinion.
Regards,
Greg
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 9:45 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-00
Authors,
I am no longer subscribed to the MPLS list, and so am sending you my comments
directly.
I previously asked for a use case or cases justifying the need for a mechanism
for residence time correction over MPLS.
The MPLS WG people who commented on the TICTOC draft insisted on it being
EXPERIMENTAL in status mainly for this reason.
I object to this draft being standards track for the same reason.
This draft corresponds to what is called in TICTOC “on-path support”.
It would be useful to use the phrase to help people understand what is being
proposed.
How do existing networks have to be modified to exploit this draft?
What happens if only some nodes support this draft (partial support)?
Section 4 has a list of control protocol upgrades.
When we were advancing the aforementioned TICTOC WG draft we were told that
this work needed to be carried out within
or at least with active participation of the relevant WGs, such as OSPF, ISIS,
and CCAMP.
I objected to the use of the term “scratch pad” for a field which was dedicated
entirely to TCF.
I see that this terminology remains in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-00 .
Please reference draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls (awaiting PROTO writeup) as an
alternative solution to this problem.
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
